bad movie
-
jcdeppfan87 — 20 years ago(September 26, 2005 08:34 PM)
I have to agree COMPLETELY with 'alibastard'. I judge a movie on all aspects (script, cine, music, etc) and as much as I LOVE Johnny (and have for 15yrs) I was VERY disappointed in this movie. I rented it because once he left Jump Street I never saw any of his movies. So earlier this year I started renting them, most of which I'm glad I waited because I would not have been mature enough to appreciate them. So far, this is the first one to disappoint. I'd rather watch Secret Window again, even though I was disappointed in the end. At least the rest was good.
-
iscariot_in_the_olives — 20 years ago(October 03, 2005 10:21 PM)
I have high respect for this movie. Im very picky with movies but this movie just made me sit on my seat and never move away from it cause i'm afraid I'd miss something. Im quite surprise someone would find this movie all that bad. The movie was clever in so many aspects and pierced much on government conpiracy in using ordinary random people as assasins, I even recall John Lennon's assasination with this movie with the using of Mark Chapman.
-
mrutgers70 — 20 years ago(November 04, 2005 11:27 PM)
I am also shocked at how many people don't like this film. When I rented it I was under the impression it was to be a direct-to-video kind of film, so I didn't expect a hell of a lot. But what a knockout! After this movie I became a fan of John Badham films (WarGames, The Hard Way, Stakeout etc etc). This is an awesome piece of filmmaking I think.
-
peterquinn70 — 14 years ago(December 07, 2011 04:00 AM)
A great cast, good ideaand a crap script. John Badham isn't the strongest director in the world - definitely one of those "journeyman" types with no signature or vision. Let's face it, Badham's best film was Saturday Night Fever (not to be confused with Cowbell Fever), and that was back in '77.
-
Volken — 12 years ago(May 24, 2013 05:26 PM)
The very proposition of what Deep is suppose to do, borders with idiocy.
Walken obviously has time and resources to expedite his scheme, without finding an "average" Joe, and then, steering this person, simply for sake of his own masochism, to deliver ridiculous plan, while walking and talking every second around Deep. Even for the most inefficient psychopath, such methodology of execution is idiotic.
Then Senator himself and his conspirators would, while diabolically preparing delivery of his wifes demise, gladly rely on faith of choosing an accidental tourist. But it gets better, much better. Walkens character is actually from the long line of Sigmund Freud family, and he was granted with such analytical mind, that he can pick someone at any spot, and be 100% sure he is the man for the task.
Yes, truly a reflection of remarkable plot.
To say this is realistic - even when such movies really require no great lengths of analysis - really makes me question aptitude of such targeted admirers. If someone likes this movie, for sake of movie, that is perfectly fine, but to say the plot of Nick of Time is plausible, well, you really lost me there!
I can almost see their faces, when tailoring this script, and carried away thinking this be a very creative plot. When you say bad movie, it is not a bad movie making or acting that bothers me, but the very premise on which everything else is built -
gabby_bm — 12 years ago(July 19, 2013 01:07 AM)
I don't think believability or plausibility is the key here. The film is merely posing the question of "what if?" it is a question people here have been attempting to answer with neither right nor wrong answers.
It's not a great film by any means. But it is a fun film that forces people to look inside themselves and examine their morality and pit it against their heroism to determine what kind of person they are - or would be in the same situation.
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3 -
anjan — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 04:11 AM)
Yes, I also was shocked in what a bad movie Christopher would act.
Not one second I was afraid of the childs life (neither, that Depp would not rescue his child or he would really kill the Gouverneur).
There was no suspense at all. For the first half, I thought, this was something like a test from a university, how far someone would go to rescue a beloved one, but when I realized, that this SHOULD be a real intrigue (when the secretary woman was shot), I couldnt help loving (although I understand the plan: They certainly wantet to kill Depp after his work, something, that wouldnt work with a hired gun). But: They plan this for months, and then they look for their killer 20 (sorry: 80!) minutes before at the station? How could they know, that their "killer" wont shoot 6 times without hitting the governeur? What motive to kill the Governeur (for Depp) would they present in the investigation? How did he get the gun? How did he go with it through the security control? A man, that comes with his 6 year old daughter from the grave of his wife has nothing better to do, than to shoot the Governeur and leave his child as an orphan (after he went into the death chamber)? Out of a sudden all the little employees of the hotel are willing to risk their lifes for a complete stranger with SUCH a story? Christopher reveals the whole intrigue, only when he is told, that the shoe cleaner might be deaf? Come on!